Forum rules
As the title "Thoughtful and Intelligent Debates" implies we want quality discussion in this forum. If you're going to post a new topic or reply to one here please make sure it fits the following guidelines.

Clear and descriptive title for your topic.

You don't need to write a book but please have a reasonable amount of material to support or dispute what you are discussing.

Outside references to material to support or dispute your argument can be used but they should not wholly make up your argument. If for example you reference a news article please explain exactly what you are referencing and why.

Stay on topic, while topics will wander in the general forums we want to keep them strictly on topic in this forum. Flaming will not be tolerated at all.

rberq wrote:Stupid? Well, yes and no. You will notice we have at least one "yes" vote for carrying a loaded assault rifle on a White House tour.

And that couldn't possibly be because a couple people are giving unserious answers to what they perceive to be an unserious question, could it? Or maybe some of those tea party crashers, in an effort to redeem themselves after their failure last week, are voting the way they imagine their foes really want to. Or maybe we got some pissed off libs on here that *really* don't like the President anymore?

Black_And_Blue wrote:Some people toured the Capitol and sat in on a House vote armed.

If you are going to try to pass off the Michigan state house as the US Capitol House Gallery, you should at least make sure the colors of the wall are correct. Those pictures are from earlier this month in Lansing, MI.

mozz wrote:No loaded guns allowed in DC, so your story is wrong. The rally was for open carry. The president didn't just sign a law, it's always been there. No guns on federal property so the question is moot.

It's a good thing President Obama signed a law earlier this year allowing loaded guns in national parks, otherwise the 75 or so folks who bothered to show up at that rally in Virginia would have had to find a place other than Ft. Hunt to hold their little tea party.

mozz wrote:No loaded guns allowed in DC, so your story is wrong. The rally was for open carry. The president didn't just sign a law, it's always been there. No guns on federal property so the question is moot.

It's a good thing President Obama signed a law earlier this year allowing loaded guns in national parks, otherwise the 75 or so folks who bothered to show up at that rally in Virginia would have had to find a place other than Ft. Hunt to hold their little tea party.

So what's your point? Maybe you don't realize that APR 19 is the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord in 1175 - the shot heard around the world. That's why the day was picked although it was a work day for most of us. As much as some of us wanted to be there some of us have to have jobs so the 47% who don't pay taxes can have a good standard of living. Tell me, what's funny about that? Lisa

My point, LIsa, which had you bothered to read you would know, is that if it weren't for President Obama, you and your friends wouldn't have been able hold your rally at Ft. Hunt which is a national park, and thus federal property.

And the 47% not paying taxes is besides the point because depending on which poll you would like to believe, anywhere between 35% - 53 % of tea partiers earn less than $50,000 a year, putting them squarely in the category of not paying taxes, particularly with the tax cuts this past year that benefited that income group. Dare I say that I suggest your next sign at a strap on party or tea party ask why such a large number of your fellow attendees don't pay taxes?

tvb wrote:It's a good thing President Obama signed a law earlier this year allowing loaded guns in national parks, otherwise the 75 or so folks who bothered to show up at that rally in Virginia would have had to find a place other than Ft. Hunt to hold their little tea party.

If that proposed change to the law was only about those wanting to hold rallies that encourage armed citizens to attend, maybe it would be silly. But it goes well beyond that tiny group of people to all those who carry for protection, the nation's sportsmen, and others who have reason to be carrying or transporting a firearm. The law prior to this could make travel through a state with a firearm very difficult. Many roads and highways go through national parks. There is a similar problem with many state laws that ban presence of firearms in state parks, creating even more potential problems for otherwise law abiding citizens simply trying to get from point A to point B or who don't wish to depend on the park rangers to be near by if they encounter a situation that calls for armed defense.

It was a silly thing for the ban to have existed in the first place. I give the President credit for signing the law, particularly since it goes against his prior professed ideology and the impulses of his left wing supporters.

Black_And_Blue wrote:Some people toured the Capitol and sat in on a House vote armed.

Which state is this? VA?

Michigan 2A rally from last week :

Under Michigan law, those who can legally own a firearm are permitted to carry it openly in most public places. But today’s demonstration tested the limits. Officers at the State Police post at the Capitol said they initially believed only handguns would be permitted inside, but later relented for those with shotguns and rifles. The House and Senate chambers are gun-free zones by rule of the individual chambers. Speaker Andy Dillon waived the rule on the House side during their afternoon session.

In theory, you should be allowed to carry anything, anywhere. If you believe in the Constitution, then you aren't likely to be a threat. I would deprive another person of their life, liberty, or happiness unless I believed he was trying to do it to me in an immediate manner.

But I see no reason why individual locations can't make rules governing who is allowed to enter and under what conditions.

Specific to the question, I believe the OP was alluding to a threat to a member of the government. The reality is that there would be armed people present to defend against a lunatic with an AK. In fact, that already happened so banning guns only keeps non criminals from bringing in guns.